About Heismanpundit

Chris Huston, A.K.A. ‘The Heisman Pundit‘, is a Heisman voter and the creator and publisher of Heismanpundit.com, a site dedicated to analysis of the Heisman Trophy and college football.
Dubbed “the foremost authority on the Heisman” by Sports Illustrated, HP is regularly quoted or cited during football season in newspapers across the country. He is also a regular contributor on sports talk radio and television.

Oh, I’ve already counted Ingram out before the season even began. As for Devine, his only chance of winning was to gain 2,000 yards probably and he ain’t gonna do that by barely breaking 100 against Marshall.

Well, BRadford was already coming off a season in which he led the nation in pass efficiency. THen, he started out his next year with a highly-efficient warm up against Chattanooga and then a 5 TD, 395 yard performance against a ranked Cincinnati team. So, Bradford was definitely starting to make waves. Gilbert hasn’t been bad, but for him to start an unlikely campaign, he needed a hot start.

I just think it’s funny that HP has eliminated 2, 3, 4, 7 and 9, but somehow lower ranked Pac 10 candidates that have lost games or been arrested for beating the crap out of their girlfriends are still viable candidates.

If you’re going to eliminate John Brantley and Noel Devine for lack of production, then why is Jacquizz Rodgers still in the mix?

If you’re going to eliminate Christian Ponder for losing to #7 Oklahoma, then why is someone who lost to unranked BYU still being considered?

Hummm….seems SumJuan got sum splainin 2do.HP ring a bell? lol By the way, it’s too early to even seriously talk about individual awards. Yeah I know that’s the main reason this place is here but no real winner after week two.

1. Oregon STate didn’t play this week. All the guys I erased today played this week.

2. Of course you are lying all over the place. That list with Barkley on top was a list of guys who specifically would NOT win because they would not have the year needed to compete for the Heisman. What part of that do you not understand?

If you are going to keep this nonsense going, I will just start deleting your comments.

So the reason you didn’t include any of the Pac 10 guys in your “Not Gonna Do It” list is because you forgot you had eliminated them 4 days earlier? That might make sense if you hadn’t remembered the only guy in your article about the MWC that wasn’t from the Pac 10.

But let’s set aside the fact that you never said anyone in your MWC article couldn’t win and let’s set aside the implications of your selective 4 day memory. Let’s even forget your denials that Matt Barkley was your #1 dark horse candidate.

“2. Of course you are lying all over the place. That list with Barkley on top was a list of guys who specifically would NOT win because they would not have the year needed to compete for the Heisman. What part of that do you not understand?”

Now you say your “dark horses” couldn’t possibly win. I don’t think that term means what you think it means. But if that’s what you thought, why did you move Barkley from dark horse to your top 10 after 1 game? Once again you’re contradicting yourself.

Perhaps you ought to reread your dark horse article:
You said these players needed “especially strong statistical years… but if any of them happen to do so–look out.”

These are real contradictions and I think your inability to face these undermines your credibility.